RichmondNative said:

I do want the staff to build the best schedule possible, but saying that it should be built to maximize the possibility of an at-large bid is simply folly

Click to expand...

I am genuinely curious. If you say trying to build a schedule to "maximize the possibility of an at-large bid is simply folly" then how should we build our schedule? What should our goal of the non-conference be? I interpret trying to “build the best schedule possible” and maximizing our at-large bid chances as synonymous with one another. You also mention an at-large is fool’s gold for a few reasons. Even though we haven’t had more than one in the past 20 years, does this mean we shouldn’t try to get an at-large bid in the future?

This is Bucknell's NET the past few years:

2024 - 277
2023 - 295
2022 - 334
2021 - 225

So the past 3 years if we played them away it's a Q4 game and in 2021 it would be a low Q3 game (241+ away is Q4). I absolutely get that it is very difficult to predict future success of a team in any given year in this era of college basketball with transfers and NIL, but a way I try to, is to look back at recent success (~5 years) and see how the team has done. I don't want to play at any Q4 games if we can avoid it. We have to when it comes to conference play and preserving the history between us and W&M is important so I get going there too every now and then. Outside of conference play and rivalries, why would you want to go to the arena of a team that has shown to be a Q4 team? Winning doesn't move the needle much and losing will take a big hit on our NET rankings. If Bucknell shows to be better than expected this year and finish with a NET < 200, then great! We can see how they do the year following and then consider another home and home with them in the future.

I also should clarify my position on power conference teams. Looking back on it, I may not have been clear, which is my fault. When I say that I want to limit at the road/neutral of power conference teams, I mean top power conference teams (top 40 or so) that will strongly be Q1 like an Auburn, Alabama, UNC, Florida. For lower-tier power conference teams like Boston College or Vanderbilt's of the world, who will likely be a Q2 game for us, I am okay with adding some of those games because they are more winnable for us and also won't hurt our NET. There's also the upside that the power conference team overperforms in conference play and sneaks into Q1 category, like you mentioned before. I am also okay with any power team, of any quadrant, to play us at home.

Essentially I don't want us to play a bunch of games like this: at Auburn, neutral Purdue, at UNC, at Alabama, neutral Florida. If instead of Alabama/Florida, you replace with Boston College and Georgia Tech, I think that's fine because the latter 2 are more winnable for us.

Definitely some passion out there on this topic. I will be very happy to see a full OOC slate so the prognosticators can weigh in on record and associated topics.

I think the hope of an at-large is fool’s gold for the following reasons in no particular order:
1) A10 is no longer a guaranteed multi-bid league. Two teams seems to be the ceiling and other A10 teams have more appeal than UR. The days of the giant killers are way in the rear view.
2) Mooney’s history - others have detailed this. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks
3) Power conferences have changed how they schedule and the NCAA has shifted the deck to favor P5 schools inclusion in the dance. A historical good enough record will likely not be good enough.
4) Player movement- NIL and the portal has changed team construction and now uncertainty rules in terms of the team strength. Another poster mentioned this and I agree (sorry not digging through thread to find, but kudos to the person).

I do want the staff to build the best schedule possible, but saying that it should be built to maximize the possibility of an at-large bid is simply folly, but it does fill up the time while waiting for something concrete to discuss (the bells, sirens and lights are getting very irritating /s).